It is an update of the older SE model, which was discontinued because they lost their dome supplier IIRC.
https://hificompass.com/en/speakers/measurements/tb-speakers/tangband-75-1558se
c.f. MD60n, the impedance curve is flatter, indicating use of a copper shorting ring which should reduce 3rd/5th order harmonics.
The slightly larger dome and longer x-max (1.5mm) should also be usable down to 500Hz (or lower) more easily than the 2.5" MD60 dome with 0.5mm x-max, which I seem to recall tested at 800Hz and up by SBA for the long term power handling test.
To be clear, I have not measured/listened to one; I was supposed to procure a pair of 75-1558SH on my recent trip to Taiwan, but alas they were out of stock, and needed to be ordered from the factory in China.
Directivity control above 10k is not that important imho. Very high frequency sound tends to get absorbed rather than be reflected when reaching a boundary consisting of normal building materials in home listening environments. Even more: longer pathways lead to more absorption of these frequencies in the air itself. So even first reflections are often lacking very high frequency sound. If one cares for good off axis listening (direct field) it’s another story of course.
Regarding old school 3-ways, the mid was called a filler. Optimal acoustic LR2 xo around 500 and 3000Hz has all drivers in same phase angle in midrange (mid driver in inverted polarity). This also makes horizontal and vertical directivity smoother without sharp suckouts. This with low distortion sums up to very pleasant and "natural" sound IMO. Smart combination of drivers and baffle dimensions are needed for success. Sadly, poor crossovers and no baffle step compensation was the problem with most old 3-ways.
Most 3" domes and some 4" cones in best scenario can use very simple electric crossovers with resonance/impedance correction. Also the woofer should not have cone resonance problems.
So, I suggest that acoustic LR2 is added in design principles!
Most 3" domes and some 4" cones in best scenario can use very simple electric crossovers with resonance/impedance correction. Also the woofer should not have cone resonance problems.
So, I suggest that acoustic LR2 is added in design principles!
This thread is going all over the place. People are discussing basic design ideas/targets, specific parts, and even worked out design example in the same wash. I fear that's not going anywhere.
Yes. I am hoping as a group we can perform some quantitative analysis to push the design/s forward by pulling together a few areas that are starting to receive detailed attention in some other threads like waveguide design, port design and perhaps adding cabinet vibration design.
Having had a further ponder the configuration would seem to lend itself to a modular approach enabling several different approaches to be accommodated and to better fit a group project. The wide baffle consists of a lower half containing the woofer and an upper half containing the midrange and tweeter. If the upper half is square and removable not only would this support upright and side use in a similar way to several studio monitors it would enable different designs of woofer module and tweeter/midrange module to be developed.
The woofer module could accomodate the different volumes required by sealed and ported loading by varying the depth and/or a sealed upper chamber. Ports could be located in the rear when viable or in the front when not.
The midrange/tweeter module could be a flat baffle with, say, a 5" midrange and a DXT tweeter when relatively straightforward is an objective, waveguides on the tweeter and small midrange when higher performance in terms of radiation pattern control is an objective (my interest) or something in between. It could also support geometries that are a good fit for passive crossovers.
Subject to a suitable woofer the configuration might be usable as a 2 way with a large waveguide and CD. A 4 way would likely be a squeeze. It doesn't look suitable for a cardioid. The wide baffle will lean towards narrower radiation patterns. Reasonably flexible so long as big is acceptable.
Separate passively isolated woofer and midrange/tweeter cabinets are generally a good feature in terms of acoustically inert cabinets. However, a softly sprung upper baffle containing the midrange and tweeter is likely to move significantly if exposed to the pressure from a sealed woofer. So some design issues to solve.
Does this seem a reasonable way forward for a group project?
But it's getting far from the monkey box id to be honest if i'm reading what he plans. Not that he should stop, but the design becomes uninteresting for me as this was done many times before in recent times. From some designs from Troels to the Tarkus design of Paul Carmody...
A low cost 3 way monkey box it is not, while that is something a lot of newby's are after (but don't know how to do it). He is driving the price up to a level most can't even afford (it's not only the driver, but also the crossover parts and the wood that cost a lot). For many that price will be way to high to even consider;
But it's his tread, maybe i should start mine about my id (but little time at the moment). And i'm still going to lurk what's happening here...
A low cost 3 way monkey box it is not, while that is something a lot of newby's are after (but don't know how to do it). He is driving the price up to a level most can't even afford (it's not only the driver, but also the crossover parts and the wood that cost a lot). For many that price will be way to high to even consider;
But it's his tread, maybe i should start mine about my id (but little time at the moment). And i'm still going to lurk what's happening here...
There are those who are quite comfortable using electrolytic capacitors and so forth.. and perhaps some who would like to feel comfortable doing so but have read so much about how terrible they are (not) that they have doubts.
Tweeter - Scan Speak D3004/602200 - 300 EUR/pair
Midrange - Wavecor WF120 / SB MFC15/ Aurum Cantus AC120 or 135, Dayton RS125 (P version or metal)
Combined: new Dayton mid&tweet carbon combo or Morel TM4055 (Morel 440 EUR/pair)
Low - 10 inch Dayton RS270 or 12 inch BMS12N630
Midrange - Wavecor WF120 / SB MFC15/ Aurum Cantus AC120 or 135, Dayton RS125 (P version or metal)
Combined: new Dayton mid&tweet carbon combo or Morel TM4055 (Morel 440 EUR/pair)
Low - 10 inch Dayton RS270 or 12 inch BMS12N630
Could be a lot cheaper for the same quality i think. You're back into expenive high end drivers, while i thought the concept was to work with normal mainstream drivers that does not cost a lot. So my take:
Tweeter: SB26ADC (maybe with Soma Sonus waveguide) 100€/pair
Mid: Faital Pro 5FE105-8 (80€/pair)
Bass: Faital 10FE330 (200€/pair) or maybe the Dayton Audio SD270A-88 (150€/pair)
This is a lot cheaper than above, and similar quality. You don't need a very expensive tweeter like that Scanspeak, there are many tweeters out today that are good enough for this kind of speaker that are a lot cheaper. The SB26ADC measures very good withut waveguide, and is like that usable to 1500Hz (but better with). Idem with mid and woofer, it can be done a lot oheaper with similar results.
These drivers will fit the standard that andy specified except price, they are cheaper.
Tweeter: SB26ADC (maybe with Soma Sonus waveguide) 100€/pair
Mid: Faital Pro 5FE105-8 (80€/pair)
Bass: Faital 10FE330 (200€/pair) or maybe the Dayton Audio SD270A-88 (150€/pair)
This is a lot cheaper than above, and similar quality. You don't need a very expensive tweeter like that Scanspeak, there are many tweeters out today that are good enough for this kind of speaker that are a lot cheaper. The SB26ADC measures very good withut waveguide, and is like that usable to 1500Hz (but better with). Idem with mid and woofer, it can be done a lot oheaper with similar results.
These drivers will fit the standard that andy specified except price, they are cheaper.
The Pit Viper's mentioned earlier is a low cost 3 way party speaker. Unfortunately Dayton drivers tend to be more expensive here in Europe but it is still a low cost large 3 way. There are a fair few other examples around particularly among home theatre DIY designs where the requirement for highish clean SPL tends to lead to large speakers.
The intention here is to look at designs a step above budget builds to ones based on standard range drivers in order to gain better performance while retaining reasonable value for money. Driver costs starting at £500ish but with £750 likely to be more represenative. Full costs will vary depending on crossovers, waveguides, cabinet materials, etc... For those with existing active setups less than £1000 is realistic but not by much, for those without or wishing to attach dedicated active crossovers and amps the additional costs could be substantial with the costs for (non-boutique) passive crossovers lying somewhere in between.
Here is a group project from a few years back on a large low cost 3 way party speaker I took an interest in but which fizzled out by evolving a design which even the chap leading it didn't want to build. A fair amount may still be relevant.
It's not a party speaker that i intend, but a budget hifi monkey coffin. That is something very different.
But i'll let you do. I'll stay out of it from now.
But i'll let you do. I'll stay out of it from now.
If anyone wanted my opinion, I'd let Andy have absolute freedom in deciding every aspect of the project
and him being a gentleman, there will still be room for the group to help in any way.
and him being a gentleman, there will still be room for the group to help in any way.
Separate enclosures break the monkey coffin principle and dramatically reduce woofer box volume. I would rule it out and keep the concept as simple as possible. Retro looks with fabric cover seems to get popularity, like power meters in amps etc.
https://sbacoustics.com/product/gema/
https://sbacoustics.com/product/gema/
There is no rule against offering an alternate solution for a different group of users, best in a different thread.
You or any other is most welcome to take initiative. Forum has not timed out yet! 😉
yeah that is true, but too little time and to many projects already, so it won't be for anytime soon...
A bit harsh, but true. How does this thread evolve? Who is driving? Do we vote on thing by thing, one by one, in a structured way? What is the structure? 😉
I think the issue with the Pit Vipers, as already mentioned, is they are more of a party speaker. They are not meant to be state of the art within budget constraints.
There are also good but expensive "Monkey Coffin" options. But I think there are plenty of people looking for that affordable version that takes into account more state of the art considerations.
Regardless what direction the project goes, I plan on following and being supportive!
There are also good but expensive "Monkey Coffin" options. But I think there are plenty of people looking for that affordable version that takes into account more state of the art considerations.
Regardless what direction the project goes, I plan on following and being supportive!
Btw, why Monkey Coffin shape factor ? Can be as easy to make a simple tower of the same volume if less width is called for the design (soundstage ?), woofer on the side.
Load as not been defined yet ? Vented, seled ? Seems vented the natural go due t the size of the bass driver and cost.
Andy, what is your amplifier power, listening distance, room size, distance of the loudspeakers from the front wall.
I really think it beginns with the wrong choice of items if you have not thougth about that first. Choice of drivers size, etc, comes at the end of the road map.
Load as not been defined yet ? Vented, seled ? Seems vented the natural go due t the size of the bass driver and cost.
Andy, what is your amplifier power, listening distance, room size, distance of the loudspeakers from the front wall.
I really think it beginns with the wrong choice of items if you have not thougth about that first. Choice of drivers size, etc, comes at the end of the road map.